Blogging

October 08, 2010

I’m a huge fan of Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. His op-ed column today in the Star-Telegram is a good example of why I admire his work.

As usual, Leonard writes about a compelling issue with impressive thoughtfulness and clarity that anyone can understand. Today, he’s venting about why “citizen journalism” isn’t journalism at all. What his view boils down to is an argument that deserves a standing ovation:

“You cannot be a journalist -– citizen or otherwise -– if credibility matters less than ideology.”

I can’t think of a simpler, more effective way to speak that truth.

Amplified by the Web’s awesome power and other new media, ideology and propagandists infest our society and culture at a toxic level, focusing destructive energies on divisiveness instead of dialogue. For instance, have you ever heard talk-show propagandist Sean Hannity tear into someone who challenges one of his views? Hannity tears them apart. So goes ideology's attack. It takes to a new level the impact of the lies, rumors and shuck 'n' jive that have plagued humankind since Day One.

“Every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a blog is a ‘citizen journalist,’” Leonard writes. Well, obviously, not all bloggers view themselves as journalists, but many do, and as I’ve read them, I’ve noted that rhetoric, not verified facts, fill their work. Yes, it's important to share thoughts and reaction. Just don't call that journalism.

There's an entire universe of good blogs that reflect informed work and are worth reading. Check here and find some guidance here. And there’s an excellent local blog -– Fortworthology.

It’s too bad that more “citizen journalists” can’t be authentic journalists digging for and reporting facts -- from pursuing government documentation with Freedom of Information requests to exposing the scandal of potholes. This country of ours needs all the real journalists it can get.

If you’re not a journalist but would like to be, go for it.

I’d suggest, though, that first you read the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Might want to note that the preamble speaks of “enlightenment.” Facts and transparency (and good journalists), not mere opinions, provide the light for that state of being.

December 10, 2009

A number of readers and colleagues keep asking what I think about a recent move at The Dallas Morning News that has 11 news department segments reporting to advertising managers instead of newsside managers. Most of us learned about this from Robert Wilonsky’s Dallas Observerblog that reported the decision and carried the Dec. 2 memo that was sent to staff from DMN Editor Bob Mong and senior vice president of sales Cyndy Carr. Plenty of reaction followed on the Web. Google and see.

Mong, to his credit, didn't shy away from questions. And Publisher Jim Moroney was pulled into the discussion as well.

My knee-jerk reaction was alarm. News sections reporting to advertising? That smacked of perverse whoring at its worst until I looked further into what’s going on. Except for the organizational chart, which gags me, I don’t see much that’s new. And I don't like the thought of ad people possibly celebrating the long-desired taking of part of "the revenue-reduction department" as, over the years, I've heard ad- and business-side people refer to news departments that aggressively and effectively serve the public interest, which is what they're supposed to be doing.

Collaboration between soft news departments and advertising departments has gone on for decades, and there are policies that support it. For instance, when was the last time you saw news of an airliner disaster on a page carrying an airline ad? When was the last time you saw an expose on red-lining in the real estate section?

Collaboration shows up often in the development of special sections. But at metro dailies like The News and elsewhere, editors generally have developed news content according to news value and not because some business had bought a huge chunk of advertising in a section. In a situation like that, the ad buy tended to be based on the fact that a story was planned on a trend, a product category or the advertiser or whatever, and the story was planned because editors knew it had news value. The story had news value because of readers’ real or potential interest in the topic and need to know. Professionalism in the reporting and presentation of the story ensured a credible piece. A newsy section filled with content like that ensured a product with high news value, which in turn created high advertising value -- a strong vehicle in which to advertise. Sounds to me like that’s what The News is going after. They know as most of us do that credible news value is the single most vital ingredient in creating fertile territory for advertising in any for-profit news product. Advertising revenue floats the boat but doesn't power it. That's the news department's job.

The only criticism I have of The News' step is the new organization. I don’t like editors reporting to advertising. That creates the perception of advertising running newsside, and that’s a perception that can poison credibility, which The News understands and is an issue the Mong and Carr address in their memo.

Advertising exudes a potent presence. If handled in a tasteless manner, it can project a destructive presence, especially in the minds of that half of readership that subscribe or buy a paper principally for its news content. What would parishioners think if, say, they walked in to mass and hanging up there above the altar was a big Drink Pepsi sign instead of a crucifix? And maybe they’d noticed the holy water font sporting a decal for Ozark water. Obviously, Pepsi and Ozark would never pull such a perverse stunt, because they respect lines that separate sacred and secular. In a for-profit news product (and don’t get me started on that), which to me is still a sacred thing, advertising obviously has its place but it should respect where it is and act accordingly. When advertising muscles in on news space, that’s crossing and disrespecting a line and asking for trouble. Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have those god-awful pages in the Star-Telegram where ads chop into news space like bullies bellying up to a reader’s face. Disgusting and as repulsive as an egotistical airhead at a party who impolitely disrupts personal conversation. But it’s salary-paying revenue, right?

I could go on and on about all this as many of us could without even scratching the surface. There are many other aspects of The News' step that are worth exploring. For instance, the ad managers to whom newsside will report have been retitled as "general managers." Did they get a raise? Any raises given to newsside staff who'll be reporting to them? Whatever. Enough said.

To reiterate my concern about The News’ step, I don’t like editors reporting to ad managers. Why not the other way around to avoid threats to credibility? Mong says he and editors reserve the right to step in and to refuse to cross lines that would jeopardize credibility. That's good, but that’s weird. They’re going to say “No” to their bosses in the ad department? What does that say about perceptions of those ad-side people's news judgment and ethics? Why have them as bosses in the first place? But maybe those ad bosses will learn something about journalism. Maybe content that results will be infused with journalistic professionalism and high-quality news value. We can hope. At least hard-news departments like the city desk, state desk, etc., don’t appear to be part of the plan. As Mong and Carr’s memo says: “To better align with our clients' needs, we will be organized around eleven business and content segments with similar marketing and consumer profiles including: sports, health/education, entertainment, travel/luxury, automotive, real estate, communications, preprints/grocery, recruitment, retail/finance, and SMB/Interactive.”

There are some hard-news categories in that lineup, but they all have consumer dimensions as well that lend themselves to softer but still newsworthy coverage. We’ll see whether writers in soft departments generate the coverage or whether the hard-news gladiators get called up for duty.

October 29, 2009

Here’s some excellent perspective on the suicide problem among young First People in Canada as shared with me yesterday by Doug Cuthand (below), a Saskatchewan Cree who’s an award-winnng documentary filmmaker, freelance writer and weekly columnist for the Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

As you’ll note, this is an outrageous situation that has persisted for years. And as with the similar problem in the western U.S., this should be a source of national shame. We North Americans criticize China and other countries who violate human rights. We like to view ourselves as champions of decency and justice. But how hollow and hypocritical that rings when free nations blessed with immense resources ignore or stand by and allow conditions to exist that drain all hope and self-respect from some of the descendants of those who were crushed under the wheels of Manifest Destiny.

Granted, many were not crushed forever. Some, like Cherokee Nation, have proven to be strong, wise and prosperous. But those who comprise the weakest continue to live in torment. Where are our helping hands for them? Where is our compassion for them? Jesus said our treatment of the least among us is our treatment of him. That certainly would include these young First People who have chosen suicide instead of the torment they've been left to endure. There’s nothing we can do even though the U.S. and Canadian governments sport huge bureaucracies and budgets to manage First People? Even though our countries' private sectors bulge with wealth and resources?

This problem goes on and on. And it's no secret by any means. The Candadian Broadcasting Corporation and other news outlets have reported about the situation for years. Check examples of CBC reports here, here and here. And see a brief Canadian Mental Health Association snapshot from its Centre for Suicide Prevention here. Why does such a horror continue? I'll be putting that question to officials and experts in the future.

Here’s what Doug Cuthand had to say in his email, and I thank him for taking time out of his demanding schedule to share these thoughts:

"Suicide is a serious issue in Canada, particularly the north. Small, isolated northern communities lack support services for our young people. Drug and alcohol abuse coupled with a sense of isolation and hopelessness is a breeding ground for the despair that leads to suicide.

"This past week there have been a series of stories about La Loche in the CBC. La Loche is a small community in northwest Saskatchewan. This troubled community has a history of social problems and youth suicide.

"The history of the community is not unlike many northern communities that have been relocated and taken away from their history. If you look on Google Earth, you will see that the village is located on the eastern shore of a lake. At one time, the people lived at the western end at a village called Portage La Loche. It was located at the end of a 35km-long portage that entered the Athabasca River. It was an historic trade route and the people made a living with teams of horses freighting across the portage.

"In the 1940s, following (WWII), the freighting industry dried up, and the government moved the people to the eastern shore where they could administer them. This was a common occurrence in northern communities. Trade routes and tradelines were forgotten, and the people were clustered into manageable artificial communities.

"I am telling you this story to illustrate how our people lost control over their lives, which subsequently led to the social upheaval and resulting problems.

"I have written about suicide and related issues for close to 20 years as a columnist. Before that I was the editor of an Indian monthly magazine. Today my writing is all freelance, and I spend most of my time as a documentary filmmaker. I don't know what effect I have on public policy except that since I began writing my column I have received at least one nasty letter from every Minister of Indian Affairs and various other politicians, which I wear as a badge of honour."

Right now, on some rez out west and in Canada, there are young people who are either contemplating suicide or they're about to try to commit suicide. Statistically, they may be insignificant, but as living gifts from the Creator, they are our fellow treasures and our little brothers and sisters. They need our help and for us to care. One thing we can do is to call this outrage to elected officials' attention and demand action to solve the problem to the extent possible, whatever that is (and we don't know because we're nowhere close to giving the problem the attention is cries out for). You're at a computer, so you're wired for action. Email your elected representatives about this. Won't cost you one cent, but your voice would be a priceless call to action.

I hope you'll call this blog to others' attention. I don't say that to build readership. I make no money from this blog that was given to me free in Typepad's journalist bailout program for those of us who lost our jobs to downsizing but who wanted to continue our work as journalists. I'm blessed with this blog for good reason, and I can't think of a better use than trying to call attention to the suicide epidemic among young Native Americans and First People.

October 24, 2009

Suicide Prevention News and Comment is one of many Web sites that have looked into the high rate of suicide among young Native Americans. An independent blog, SPNAC is edited and published by suicide prevention advocate and suicide grief outreach worker Franklin Cook.

Last February -– almost at the same time of the SCIA hearing in Washington (see preceding blog item) -– Franklin wrote on SPNAC: “Canada’s situation is similar to that of many Native American communities in the United States. For instance, in South Dakota, the suicide rate for white males 15 to 19 years old is 23 deaths per 100,000 population while the rate for Native American males in the same age group in the state is 103 per 100,000. (Data are for the years 1999-2005. The source is the CDC’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System or WISQARS.)”

He also published a related column by accomplished film producer, director and freelance writer Doug Cuthand of Saskatchewan and the Little Pine First Nation. In his column, which had just been published in the Saskatchewan Leader-Post, Cuthand argued that today’s suicide epidemic is linked to colonialism, and he included excellent related context and views. Here are some excerpts:

“There is no worse indictment on the failure of government policy toward aboriginal peoples in Canada than our appalling rate of suicide. The tragic act of taking one’s life is a reflection of our young people’s lack of hope for the future and pain of the present.

“Suicide accounts for one quarter of the injury deaths for First Nations people between the ages of 15 and 25. According to Health Canada, suicide rates for First Nations youth are five to seven times higher than the national average.

“We have suicide rates that are among the highest in the world. The rate in Nunavut, for example, is double that of Lithuania, which has the world’s highest suicide rate among countries.

“Living conditions, lack of opportunity, unemployment, and drug and alcohol abuse all contribute to the high rate of suicide among our youth.

“Our young people are living through a period of profound change. Our culture is changing rapidly. We are moving from a rural society to an urban one. We are bombarded by information from the world through television. Our young people feel they don’t have a place in this new world. (Emphasis mine.)

“Research has shown that communities where the culture is strong have a lower rate of suicide compared to reserves where the culture has been lost or seriously weakened. Also, when employment rates increase, the suicide rate declines. A strong culture combined with good leadership is a deterrent to youth suicide.”

What do you think? Please share thoughts -- and spread the word about this horrific situation that must be corrected.

June 17, 2009

While I’m waiting on some information for a blog post about some healthy conflict at last week’s GFW PRSA luncheon, I thought I’d share an interesting tidbit about blogdom from a June 5 New York Times story by Douglas Quenqua:

“According to a 2008 survey by Technorati, which runs a search engine for blogs, only 7.4 million out of the 133 million blogs the company tracks had been updated in the past 120 days. That translates to 95 percent of blogs being essentially abandoned, left to lie fallow on the Web, where they become public remnants of a dream — or at least an ambition — unfulfilled.”

Looks as though a lot of folks have discovered a painful reality that journalists live with every day: Like writing, blogging’s not a snap. It’s a time-consuming, demanding craft.